Lord Davies of Oldham: The department does not record or keep this information centrally. Further detailed information will be available directly from the partnership who can be contacted via their website at www.staffordshire.gov.uk/cameralifesavers.

Lord Rooker: I am sorry for the delay in replying.
	The independent Bloody Sunday inquiry has informed me that they are now engaged in compiling their final report. Due to the vast amount of evidence that must be considered this is a very time-consuming process and it is difficult at this stage to be precise about when the report will be presented to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the Noble Lord to my answer of 10 October 2005 Official Report, Col. WA 18.

Lord Bach: The movement of birds within the EU is controlled by Community rules which do not require birds to be quarantined. However, the UK's salmonella controls require all fowl species (for example chicken, ducks and turkeys) arriving in the UK from other member states to be isolated on for at least 112 days after arrival. The movement of pet birds between EU member states is not covered by EU legislation. Under the Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979 we require pet birds to be isolated at their domestic premises for 35 days following import. During this period the birds are subjected to two veterinary inspections.

Baroness Amos: In November 2004, following the large-scale destruction caused by Hurricane Ivan, the Government of Granada convened an international donors' conference at which they identified the following priority areas for reconstruction support: housing, the repair and rebuilding of schools, reactivation of the agricultural and tourism sectors and reforestation.
	The UK provided approximately £7.1 million to Grenada in the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan. Of this amount, £900,000 was spent on immediate humanitarian assistance through NGOs and regional organisations, with the remaining £700,000 reflecting the UK's share of European humanitarian assistance. A further £5.5 million was provided as emergency financial assistance to help the government of Grenada meet their wage bill for the last quarter of 2004.
	In response to the Government's appeal, a number of Grenada's international development partners committed £45.4 million in new funding and reallocated £28 million from their existing programmes. These partners include the governments of the United States and Canada, and multilateral organisations such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the European Union, and their contributions are captured in the table below. Other support for Grenada's reconstruction efforts has come from France, the Republic of Taiwan and Venezuela. Recent World Bank estimates of disbursement levels against these commitments show that donors have to date, disbursed approximately £31 million to finance the reconstruction programme. Most of this has gone to the key sectors highlighted by the Government of Grenada last November, and significant progress has been made, particularly in the education sector.
	
		Grenada: Reconstruction Support (30 September 2005)
		
			 Government/Institutions Total Reallocated and New Funds£'000s 
			 Caribbean Development Bank 20,522 
			 Canadian International DevelopmentAgency 2,526 
			 UK Department for InternationalDevelopment 6,405 
			 European Union 6,888 
			 United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganisation 225 
			 Organisation of American States 152 
			 United Nations Development Programme 583 
			 United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment 24,814 
			 World Bank 11,227 
			 Inter-American Development Bank 5,613 
			 Total 78,953 
		
	
	This is a table based on World Bank figures and converted at an exchange rate of £1: $1,78144 on 28 October 2005.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Proposals to install safety cameras within the National Safety Camera Programme are made by Safety Camera Partnerships, formed of police, highways authorities, the courts and other stakeholders, in their annual operational case which forms, part of the strict criteria that enable partnerships to reclaim expenditure from fine revenue. Cameras can only be deployed after the local highway authority has confirmed that no other cost-effective environmental or engineering solutions can be implemented to improve road safety. Approval of partnerships' operational cases rests with the Department for Transport. Police authorities continue to have the ability to install safety cameras, independent of the National Safety Camera Programme, but in such cases cannot reclaim the expenditure from fine revenue.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish in the Official Report the two letters sent to the Lord Jenkin of Roding by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury dated 31 October and 9 October 2005 about the application of the provisions of the Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) (Lloyd's) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1998) to Names and ex-Lloyd's Names; and whether they will place copies in the Library of the House.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I have asked the Editor to publish in the Official Report the letters which the Economic Secretary sent to the noble Lord on 31 October and 9 November. The letters have also been placed in the Library of the House.
	Letter from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, dated 31 October 2005
	Thank you for coming to meet Lord McKenzie and me on 19 October. I thought it was a very constructive and helpful meeting and I trust you feel likewise. I agreed to set out in writing to you several points that we discussed about the moratorium to try and clear up some of the misunderstandings that remain around the legislation.
	Ability of a Name to challenge insurance claims
	You explained that there is significant concern that the process of applying for a Lloyd's Market Reorganisation Order (LMRO) and in particular the moratorium in regulation 8 may prevent Names challenging the validity of insurance claims against them.
	I am happy to confirm that this is not the case. First, recognising that there are potential claims which call into question the ability of the Lloyd's market to continue to meet its regulatory solvency requirements, so that an application for an LMRO should be made, does not imply that the legal validity of those claims has been accepted. That would remain a matter for the members, their agents and other advisers in respect of each insurance contract.
	Second, the moratorium means that no proceeding can be brought against a Name without the permission of the court. This is designed to protect the Names against opportunistic litigation by policyholders or others. It is also important to ensure order is maintained in dealing with multiple insolvencies or potential insolvencies within the market. It should be noted that the moratorium is worded in terms of "proceedings or other legal process". It is not in terms of the ability of a member to do particular things in litigation. Once the proceedings are allowed to go forward, that implies the whole proceedings, including the ability of the member to make the best case he can. It is not designed to and does not remove or fetter a Name's right or ability to defend an action against him that is allowed to proceed. Take for example the case where a policyholder alleges a Name owes him monies under an insurance policy and the policyholder seeks the permission of the court to commence proceedings against that Name to recover those monies. In the event that the court gives permission to the policyholder to commence litigation against a Name, it is the whole legal process of instituting and pursuing a claim in the court against an identified defendant that is allowed to go ahead—and that necessarily includes the rights of the defendant to defend himself. Any proceeding would then be conducted as if the LMRO did not apply to the litigant. This example extends to any litigation launched against a Name. It is worth reiterating that any moratorium only comes into effect on the making by a court of a Lloyd's Market Reorganisation Order and that any moratorium is not permanent.
	The moratorium allows for a "breathing space" in which the reorganisation controller can put together a plan for achievement of the objectives of the LMRO without the assets within the market being further depleted by litigation. That process does not involve the reorganisation controller making commitments to third parties which bind members as to their liability under a particular insurance contract.
	I should add, for clarity, the existence of a LMRO does not prevent a Name commencing or continuing proceedings against others (except those market participants and others specified in regulation 8(1) who would be covered by the moratorium).
	You mentioned in the meeting that we should consider setting up a process whereby Names are consulted about the need for an LMRO. It appears that this suggestion, at least in part, stemmed from a misunderstanding of the term 'approved debt' which I deal with below and thus I hope it is clear that the need for an additional stage to the process in unnecessary. I should, however, make a few more general comments about the suggestion.
	In the circumstances in which the FSA or the Society would be thinking of applying for a LMRO there would be considerable uncertainty and market turmoil. The moratorium could be expected to facilitate examination of the provenance of particular claims and that examination would continue to be carried out by Managing Agents in the normal way. If questions arise as to whether a LMRO should be applied for, then it would be difficult for FSA in particular to carry out a formal consultation given the urgency of the issue. The moment that any sort of consultation of this sort was begun, one could expect a flurry of opportunistic litigation would begin because the existence of potential problems would be immediately apparent. The FSA would consider the Lloyd's returns and information similar to the Lloyd's returns as part of its ongoing supervision of the market to assess whether or not there was an issue with the solvency of Lloyd's. This would not involve an assessment of each individual's solvency and individual claims. The assessment of the resources in the market for solvency purposes would be judged by the funds in the market. The decision to make an application for an LMRO would not hang on the validity of one claim subject to proper reserving procedures.
	Ability of a Name to commence or continue legal proceedings
	You also expressed concern that the legislation would prevent Names from continuing to pursue an action against HM Treasury for its alleged failure to implement European Community obligations for the regulation of the Lloyd's market (in particular the current ongoing NACDE litigation, Frederick Thomas Poole and others v HM Treasury ("the Poole litigation")).
	It is, of course, not the intention of the Treasury to legislate to prevent NACDE or any other Names pursuing a claim against it. I can confirm that this legislation does not, of itself, prevent the Poole litigation, or any other litigation against us continuing. That is because regulation 8(1) applies in respect of actions against Members as opposed to actions by them. Indeed, I can confirm that as part of the early stages of this litigation, there is a court hearing for the Poole litigation on 4 November.
	On a general note, if, for whatever reason, a Name were unable to meet his liabilities, it may be that the appointment of a receiver or trustee in bankruptcy for that Name would be sought. If appointed, they would need to decide whether or not that Name should continue to pursue any litigation. This is the position regardless of whether or not an LMRO is made, in line with general insolvency law.
	Approved debt
	I understand that you are happy that a recent official letter on this subject addressed the concern, but I think it is worth answering the point again.
	There has been concern that regulation 8(4) (which talks about an "approved debt") means that Lloyd's can unilaterally determine whether or not a Name is liable to a policyholder and that any Name would have no opportunity to challenge such a decision.
	I can reassure you that this is not the case. Regulation 8(4) needs to be read in conjunction with regulation 8(12) that defines the terms used in regulation 8(4). Regulation 8(4), when so read, says a security granted over some of the assets of a Name held at Lloyd's for the purposes of complying with the regulatory requirements of overseas regulators can be enforced. This regulation is therefore only relevant to Names currently writing business in the market and does not include any Names that are not currently underwriting. It is necessary to ensure that overseas regulators are satisfied with the robustness of the situs arrangements they have established as part of the requirement for Lloyd's Names to have permission to write insurance in their jurisdiction.
	Nothing in these regulations prevents an individual seeking to be excluded from the LMRO by application to the Court. An affected market participant could seek to have the order set aside, but to be successful would have to convince the court that the objectives identified in regulation 5 would be met better by stopping the process, rather than by allowing the process of examination and planning that the Regulations provide for to proceed. Other market participants may have different views on the desirability of halting the process and ending the moratorium.
	Duration of LMRO
	You noted that the duration of any LMRO is not specified in the legislation.
	This is correct. We considered whether we should specify the duration of any LMRO in the legislation and decided not to for a number of reasons including:
	It is not possible to predict with any degree of confidence the precise events that may give rise to the need for an LMRO and thus the precise situation in which it needs to operate. We therefore cannot be clear whether any LMRO would need to be in place for 12 months or longer (or conceivably a shorter period). Given this, we did not want to put an arbitrary figure in the legislation, which may fetter the court's handling of the matter and mislead as to the likely duration of the matter.
	We could be comfortable to have a provision without specific duration because the reorganisation controller is an officer of the court and the whole process would be overseen by the courts. Any matter would be before the courts on a continuing basis and the courts would be best placed to consider on each occasion whether or not the LMRO should remain in force. Indeed the court has to be satisfied in the first place that any regulatory solvency requirement is not or may not be met and that the objectives of the LMRO in dealing with such a situation are likely to be achieved. For the duration that this is the view taken by the Court, and only for as long as this is the case, will the LMRO remain in force.
	I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. Please let me know if there is any further clarification I can provide on these regulations or the directive more generally.
	Letter from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, dated 9 November 2005
	Further to my letter of 31 October 2005, I also agreed to write about other issues you raised about the Regulations when we met.
	Scope of Directive
	You explained that some do not believe that Equitas and Equitas reinsured Names are within the scope of the Directive and asked for my comments on this issue.
	It is correct that the Directive does not apply directly to Equitas because it is a reinsurer. As a reinsurer, in the event that Equitas were to fail, outstanding liabilities under insurance contracts reinsured by it would revert to the Names it reinsured. Such Names would be insurers for the purpose of the Directive. They remain liable ultimately if those with whom the contracts were reinsured are unable to meet claims under them and, as Names are part of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's. It was therefore necessary to find a way of implementing the Directive that applied certain provisions of it to those Names. Failure to do so would have been a failure to implement the Directive and in particular a failure to the effect required as to priority of insurance claims under Article 10 of the Directive.
	As part of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's, we believed it was appropriate to treat them as insurers for the purposes of insolvency only in the event that the requirements of the Directive were triggered for the association. This means that priority is given to insurance creditors over other unsecured creditors in relation to their unencumbered assets only in circumstances when Equitas is unable to meet its liabilities AND the solvency of the market is in doubt. We have, however, given them the initial benefit of the moratorium once an LMRO is made in the event that the solvency of the market is in doubt.
	Mutualisation 
	You expressed concern that any LMRO would inevitably have to operate on the basis that Equitas mutualisation would extend to the current and future liabilities of names without redress.
	An LMRO would not operate to mutualise losses. It is suggested that Equitas has mutualised the losses it has reinsured. That may be the case. However, it is not a matter for the Treasury to interfere with commercial arrangements. That is one of the reasons why the regulations overlay the existing legal position rather than altering it.
	Payments to the Central Fund
	You expressed concern about current and past unlimited liability Names being required to make good a central fund shortfall.
	It is correct that there may be circumstances where Names currently underwriting insurance may be asked to contribute further sums to the New Central Fund to enable the market to continue to write business. It will then be a matter for Names to decide if they want to be able to continue to write business in a Lloyd's market. However, it is not possible for pre 1996 Names to be required to contribute to the New Central Fund. This is solely a matter for them. The LMRO does nothing to change this.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Secretary of State for Transport plans and funds through his department and its agencies a variety of capital and revenue projects. He also funds projects which are planned by others, particularly local authorities, through the local transport plan (LTP) process and revenue support grant allocations. The LTP system provides capital funding to local authorities to cover expenditure on major schemes (those costing more than £5m) and minor improvement works and maintenance by way of block allocations.
	In terms of local authority and Highways Agency capital transport infrastructure improvement projects costing more than £5 million, it should be noted that, in July 2005, regions were provided with indicative annual capital allocations to 2015–16 for transport (excluding rail funding) in order that they could prioritise schemes and provide advice to the Secretary of State in January 2006. Highways Agency trunk road projects in the North East included in this process are all bar those on the Al in the region to its junction with the A19 from the south.
	There are a number of major schemes in the region which have recently been completed or are currently under construction:
	A167 Chilton Bypass, Durham
	South Stockton Link Road
	Stephenson Link, North Tyneside
	Scotswood Road Dualling, Newcastle
	Eldon Square bus station
	Sunderland Southern radial route
	Durham Park and Ride
	There are currently two major schemes in the region which are planned to commence construction in early 2006:
	A66 Long Newton Junction Improvement, Stockton
	Pegswood Bypass, Northumberland
	In addition, the department is involved with its regional partners in the planning or funding of the following major projects. Progress and timing for these schemes will be subject to regional advice, the future availability of finance and individual projects representing value for money:
	North Middlesbrough Accessibility Improvement Scheme
	Darlington Eastern Transport Corridor Wheatley Hill to Bowburn, Durham
	Sunderland Central Route
	Northern Gateway, North Tyneside
	A1 Adderstone to Belford dualling, Northumberland
	A1 Morpeth to Felton Dualling, Northumberland
	A19 Seaton Burn Junction Improvement
	North Tyneside A19 Testos Junction Improvement, South Tyneside
	A69 Haydon Bridge Bypass
	In addition to the above, there are further schemes which are identified in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy recently submitted to Ministers and which are emerging through local transport plans and the ongoing development of the trunk road and rail networks, which will be considered in due course but which have no degree of funding commitment at this stage.

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For each year since 1998, how much compensation has been paid to civilians in South Armagh as a result of security forces' alleged activities in the area.

Lord Rooker: The Compensation Agency has operational responsibility for administration of the statutory compensation scheme under the Terrorism Act 2000. From 1998 to the present time the agency has paid approximately £7.5 million in relation to claims identified as originating from the South Armagh area.
	The following table shows the amounts paid annually from 1998 to present.
	
		
			 Financial year Amount of compensation paid £ 
			 1997–98 34,911.00 
			 1998–99 1,016,284.75 
			 1999–2000 1,411,629.70 
			 2000–01 1,941,691.80 
			 2001–02 823,655.40 
			 2002–03 1,757,681.92 
			 2003–04 395,208.43 
			 2004–05 19,397.50 
			 2005–06 325.00 
			 Total 7,400,785.50 
		
	
	The following figures come from Directorate for Safety and Claims who do not record Northern Ireland claims by area. From 1 January 1998 to date the Claims Public Liability Group paid compensation and costs to Northern Ireland claimants as follows.
	
		
			 Calendar Year Amount 
			 1998 £289,479.04 
			 1999 £290,895.78 
			 2000 £356,960.12 
			 2001 £81,374.86 
			 2002 £136,384.02 
			 2003 £23,625.00 
			 2004 £9,950.00 
			 2005 £542,329.87*(to date) 
		
	
	These claims will have been received from members of the public who have had a dispute with members of the armed forces while in support of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). The majority of claims will be for alleged assault, harassment or wrongful arrest, quite often at vehicle check points.
	* Note that at least 80 per cent of the total to date for 2005 covers one claim.

Lord Rooker: The Police Ombudsman has advised that as at 1 April 2005 the number of staff employed by her office including seconded police officers from England and Wales was 118, there are also a further three secondments from Northern Ireland Civil Service bodies. The office operates the Northern Ireland Office grading structure and the breakdown of staff is 19 at grade D, 29 at grade C, 58 at grade B, 9 at grade A and 3 at Senior Civil Service grades.
	The last statutory return to the Equality Commission on 1 January 2005 showed that the Ombudsman's office employed 62 per cent male and 38 per cent. female of which 47 per cent were recorded as Protestant, 39 per cent Catholic and others 14 per cent A further subdivision of staff into gender and perceived religious affiliation by grade is not included as the small numbers involved in such a breakdown could identify individuals.

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether Parliamentary approval was given to the funding for the festivals in West Belfast, New Lodge and Ardoyne in 2003; 2004; and 2005; if so, when and how such approval was given; and why similar funding was not provided for the Ulster-Scots Agency in 2004 and 2005.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to update the Northern Ireland Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies 1998 report which was published on 19 May 1999 and is currently displayed on the internet.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to publish their proposals to give prisoners the right to vote in Parliamentary elections in accordance with their Convention rights as declared by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Income for the period 2004–05 represents amounts received in funding from the SRA via Network Rail, plus amounts received from third parties for goods and services supplied. Funding for RSSB in future years is expected to be principally derived from Government and direct funding from the membership of RSSB.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Several reports have been published covering the liberalisation of licensing hours in Scotland in 1976. Work done by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys in 1986 examined the impact of the changes on alcohol consumption between 1976 and 1984. This concluded that the extension to licensing hours tended to be seen as having led to more sensible drinking.
	The Time to Call Time report published by the Adam Smith Institute in 1986 included evidence that the 1976 reforms in Scotland had been followed either by reductions in certain criminal offences or increases that were below those experienced in England and Wales.
	The Research and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office conducted a comprehensive review in the late 1990s of all research into alcohol and crime over a period of 20 years. Its 1999 report, "Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock", concluded that the Scottish experience of more liberal drinking hours appeared to have worked well, changing the binge drinking culture to a slower drinking, more female-friendly environment. The independent Nicholson Committee, which looked at experience in Scotland and elsewhere, considered that the majority of people in Scotland drink sensibly and responsibly and that the licensing system should be as free from restrictions as possible.
	The Government recognise that a number of factors contribute to crime and disorder and that the relaxation of licensing hours on its own will not in itself lead to a reduction in crime and disorder. We do, however, believe that the experience of Scotland and elsewhere indicates that flexible opening can be part of the solution. That is why the Government are pursuing licensing reform as one part of their wider programme to tackle alcohol-related harm.

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Triesman on 19 October (WA 133), whether in view of reports of the hijacking of an oil tanker and a ship carrying food to Somalia on 22 to 23 October, and of a Maltese ship on 20 October, they will reconsider their view that the problem of piracy off the Somali coast can only be brought under control after the return of stability and good governance in Somalia.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which ten local authority areas in Wales have the highest number of minors under the poverty level.

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the number of former members of the Northern Ireland civil service now employed by Waterways Ireland is 90 per cent less than when the organisation was created, when the number of former members of the Irish civil service employed is only 20 per cent less.

Lord Rooker: The qualifications required for the post of Head of Administration in the Marketing and Communications Division in Waterways Ireland are either a degree or equivalent with a minimum of five years relevant experience or a minimum of 10 years experience in an administrative role, where at least five years of which has involved staff management responsibilities, in a commercial, voluntary or public sector environment. The person appointed to the post met these criteria. The appointment of the individual concerned to the post is a matter for the chief executive.

Lord Rooker: Waterways Ireland has under-spent its budget in 5 years. The under-spends were as follows.
	
		
			 Year Capital Administration and Other Costs 
			  000's 000's 
			 2000 IR£834 IR£1,380 
			 2001 IR£1,492 IR£5,617 
			 2002 €7,635 €1,463 
			 2003 €6,336 €3,304 
			 2004 €11,149 €1,122 
		
	
	The main reason for under-spend of capital budget allocations is delay on buildings projects, notably the new Waterways Ireland headquarters in Enniskillen and additional capital projects in the Republic of Ireland which have been subject to planning delays. The capital under-spending is not cumulative. Under-spend on administration and other costs is due to the effect on payroll costs of delays in staff recruitment.